alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed, November 14, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00833

- CV

____________ JETALL COMPANIES, IN C. , Appellant

V.

FOUR SEASONS FOOD DI STRIBUTORS, INC. AND DAVID G. DANG , Appellee

On Appeal from the 212t h District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- CV

- 2294



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 11, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The

re cord has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Tamra Parks , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 10 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
(Reap. Dec. 9346)

#### Marion Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 866961.

(Decided March 17, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain merchandise imported from France is the subject of this appeal for a reappraisement.

When this case was called for hearing, the parties hereto limited the appeal to two items of merchandise, both consisting of urns.

It was agreed that as to item number 5.205 on the commercial invoice, consisting of two urns, which were entered at 35,000 French francs and appraised at 90,000 French francs, net, plus cost of packing per pair, that the appraised value was correct.

As to item number 5.258 on the invoice, also consisting of two urns, which were entered at 47,400 French francs and appraised at 75,000 French francs, it was agreed by the parties that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for *559sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, was 47,400 French francs per pair, plus cost of packing, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for determining the value of the two items of merchandise in controversy and that said value, insofar as it relates to item number 5.205, consisting of two urns, is the appraised value, namely, 90,000 French francs, net, plus cost of packing per pair, and as to item number 5.258, also consisting of two urns, is 47,400 French francs per pair, plus cost of packing. As to any other items of merchandise, the appeal for a reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2



TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Each of the
undersigned officers of Tampa Electric Company (the Company) certifies, under the standards set forth in and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2005 |  | /s/ S. W. HUDSON       
|                      |  | S. W. HUDSON           
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                      | 
|Dated: August 8, 2005 |  | /s/ G. L. GILLETTE     
|                      |  | G. L. GILLETTE         
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the
Form 10-Q.
Teresa L. Baldwin, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Case No. 2:12-cv-298 

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

Plaintiff moves for attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act in this social security case. Mot. Atty. Fees, ECF No. 25. Magistrate 

Judge Deavers has issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") 

recommending the Court grant Plaintiff's motion and award fees in the total 

amount of $6,000. 78. R&R 6, ECF No. 26. 

The R&R advised the parties of their right to object within fourteen days 

and that failure to do so would amount to waiver of the right to de novo review by 

the undersigned and of the right to appeal a decision adopting the R&R. /d. The 

deadline for filing objections has passed, and none have been received. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and awards attorneys' fees and costs 

in the amount of $6,000. 78. The award shall be paid directly to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Mf ~~-Wk HAELtiATSON, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 2:12-cv-00298-MHW-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 02/27/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
September 3, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 3rd day of September, 2015.

10-15-00216-CR	EX PARTE M.A.R. - ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF ELLIS COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 1310051A - DISMISSED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the appeal be dismissed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 12002E081

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title VI: Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws - Chapter 1: Rules on competition - Section 1: Rules applying to undertakings - Article 81 - Article 85 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 85 - EEC Treaty***Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0064 - 0065 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0208 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0028 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available)*

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Three: Community policies

Title VI: Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws

Chapter 1: Rules on competition

Section 1: Rules applying to undertakings

Article 81

Article 85 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 85 - EEC Treaty

Article 81

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which:

(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

(c) share markets or sources of supply;

(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this article shall be automatically void.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,

- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,

- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,

which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;

(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellate case name: Lemorris Grover and Marcelo Sanchez a/k/a Marcelo 

Sanchez-Reyes v. Terence and Carolyn McGuinness

Appellate case number: 01-11-00204-CV

Trial court case number: 2006-59727

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

This appeal was stayed pursuant to the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed in this 

Court on February 23, 2012, stating that one appellant, Lemorris Grover, had filed a

bankruptcy petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 

which was assigned case number 12-31364. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2; see also 11 U.S.C. § 

362(a). Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website, the Court has 

learned that appellant’s bankruptcy case was dismissed on May 28, 2014. Accordingly, 

the Court directs the Clerk of this Court to reinstate this appeal as an active case.

However, the filing fee has not been paid and the clerk’s record has not yet been 

filed due to appellant Grover’s lack of payment and he has not established indigence. 

Thus, appellants are ORDERED to pay the $175.00 filing fee to the Clerk of this Court 

and to request the clerk’s record and pay, or make arrangements to pay, for the clerk’s 

record fee, and file evidence of such payment with the Clerk of this Court within 30 days

of the date of this order, or this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution 

without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

In addition, because appellant Grover’s counsel, Kevin R. Michaels, had filed a 

motion to withdraw, which was still pending at the time of the stay, counsel is 

ORDERED to send a copy of this order to Lemorris Grover and to file confirmation of 

mailing with this Court within 10 days of this order. See id. 6.3(c), 6.5(a)(2), (b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually 

Date: August 16, 2016
The manner in which you use and the purpose to whic h you put and utilize our products, technical assis tance and information (whether verbal,

written or by way of production evaluations), inclu ding any suggested formulations and recommendations , are beyond our control. Therefore, it is imperative that you test our products, technical as sistance and information to determine to your own s atisfaction whether our products, technical assistance and information are suitable for your in tended uses and applications. This application-spec ific analysis must at least include testing to determine suitability from a technical as well as h ealth, safety, and environmental standpoint. Such t esting has not necessarily been done by us. Unless we otherwise agree in writing, all products are sold strictly pursuant to the terms of our stan dard conditions of sale which are available upon request. All information and technical assista nce is given without warranty or guarantee and is s ubject to change without notice. It is expressly understood and agreed that you assume and hereby expressly release us from all liability, in tort, contract or otherwise, incurred in connection with the use of our products, technical assistance, and information. Any statement or recom mendation not contained herein is unauthorized and shall not bind us. Nothing herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any p roduct in conflict with any claim of any patent relative to any material or its use. No lice nse is implied or in fact granted under the claims of any patent. As previously stated, the reentry times shown above are based on emissions testing of BaysealTM CC and BaysealTM OC SPF insulation. BMS believes th ese reentry times are appropriate for all of its BaysealTM and EcoBayTM SPF insulation products.

Please note that the reentry times are based on the following assumptions: 1) that the SPF insulation was applied in accordance with BMS recommendations; and 2) following the 24 hour ventilation period, the structure maintains a minimum outdoor a ir exchange rate that meets or exceeds the accepted industry standard (ASHRAE 62.1 or 62.2) th rough natural infiltration or mechanical

means.

For detailed and up-to-date information on SPF work er health and safety, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), safe use and handling guideline s, and a health and safety information program, please visit www.spf.bayermaterialscience.com and click on the BayCare link on the left menu. In addition, note that www.spraypolyurethane.org contains useful SPF health and safety information. Please contact your BMS representativ e for more information.

Sincerely,

Jim Lambach Technology Head Bayer MaterialScience Spray Insulation and Roofing Materials

412- 777-4831

Brian F. Karlovich, CIH, CSP Product Safety Representative Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Department

412- 777-4808
**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Health In Harmony Inc., for the year ending October 31, 2011, I, Tammy DuPerron, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

1.    Such yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending October 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.    The information contained in such yearly report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2011, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Health In Harmony Inc.

 

 

|                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |
| Date: October 12, 2012                                  |
|                                               |
| */s/ Tammy DuPerron*                                    |
| Tammy DuPerron

*President and Chief Executive Officer* |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RACHEL M. BORDER, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-379 

v. Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

ORDER 

 On October 31, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge 

recommended that plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney fees and 

costs, Doc. No. 23, be granted in part. Report and Recommendation, 

Doc. No. 25. Although the parties were advised of their right to 

object to that recommendation, and of the consequences of their 

failure to do so, there has been no objection. 

 The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 25, is ADOPTED AND 

AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney fees and costs, 

Doc. No. 23, is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is AWARDED an attorney 

fee, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. §2412, in the total amount of $5,000.00. It is understood that, 

if plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt to the United States that is 

subject to offset, the Commissioner will direct that the award be made 

payable to plaintiff’s attorneys. 

 ___s/Algenon L. Marbley_________ 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-00379-ALM-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/14/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOROTEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONTAINED IN ITS 
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                    JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                                          191,000
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   1,402,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    80,000
<INVENTORY>                                                     3,065,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>	                                               4,746,000
<PP&E>                                                          4,384,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  2,682,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  6,704,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           2,239,000
<BONDS>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                        1,440,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                      2,425,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    6,704,000
<SALES>                                                         9,119,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                9,119,000
<CGS>                                                           7,006,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   9,360,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                71,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              204,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (516,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (516,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (516,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   (.18)

        

</TABLE>
## **Exhibit32.1**

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer**

**of Tipperary Corporation  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

 

                In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Tipperary Corporation (the “*Company*”) for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “*Report*”), I, David L. Bradshaw, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  David L. Bradshaw |
|--------|------------------------|
|   | Name:                  | David L. Bradshaw |
|   | Title:                 | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:                  | December 10, 2004 |
|   |                   |   |

 

 

----
# Official Journal C 154/29 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 154 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5929 April 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 154

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5929 April 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 154/1 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2016 to 31 March 2016(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2016/C 154/2 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2016 to 31 March 2016(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 154/1

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2016 to 31 March 2016(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2016/C 154/2

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2016 to 31 March 2016(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

8

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Summary3

Market Research and AnalysisConfidential and Proprietary	&P of &N	&F   &AMarch 16, 2017

# Summary2

Market Research and AnalysisConfidential and Proprietary	&P of &N	&F   &AMarch 16, 2017
No. 56112.

protests 174078-K and 174079-K (New York).

#### Mayfair Jewelry Co. and Mayfair Shoes, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.